资源环境承载力与区域可持续发展

实施"可持续发展战略"是世界各国的发展共识。可持续发展理念的核心是经济发展、资源保护和生态环境保护相协调统一。资源环境承载力是制定可持续发展战略规划的基础。只有准确衡量区域的资源环境承载力,才能从整体上以承载力为约束对国土空间进行科学规划,引导社会经济活动在资源节约、环境保护的基础上科学发展,从而实现区域的可持续发展。文章综述了与区域可持续发展密切相关的四大类资源承载力(包括土地资源、水资源、能源资源和生物资源承载力)和两大类环境承载力(包括空气环境和水环境承载力)的重要性。在综合我国国家标准文件和研究论文的基础上,总结了四大类资源承载力和两大类环境承载力的主要评价指标和评价标准。更进一步,结合我国的资源承载力和可持续发展的研究和实践现状,从研究内容和指标体系构建两方面着眼,指出应尽快制定符合我国国情的评价标准和综合评价体系,并通过简化评价过程来提高资源环境承载力评价的可操作性。     

区域生态安全:概念及评价理论基础

借鉴国内外的研究成果,提出区域生态安全的概念是指在一定时空范围内,在自然及人类活动的干扰下,区域内生态环境条件以及所面临的生态环境问题不对人类生存和持续发展构成威胁,并且自然-经济-社会复合生态系统的脆弱性能够不断得到改善的状态。指出生态安全评价是一个多学科交叉的研究领域,其评价理论基础涉及可持续发展理论、生态系统服务功能理论、生态承载力理论、时空论和系统工程论等;生态安全是可持续发展的基础,两者具有内涵和目标的一致性;区域生态安全研究的目的就是平衡人类的自然资源利用与生存环境质量需求的矛盾,保证生态系统在持续安全的状态下提供服务;应用生态承载力的研究成果有助于补充和完善生态安全评价。区域生态安全评价强调研究对象的时空性和研究方法的系统性。多学科整合能更好地指导区域生态安全评价。     

生态承载力研究进展

从生态承载力角度研究区域资源-生态-环境问题,是当今生态学、地理学和经济学等学科研究的热点与前沿领域之一。在调研现有研究成果基础上,阐述了承载力的起源、演化与发展以及国内外研究进展,对生态承载力的概念、研究方法、研究趋势及其与可持续发展的关系等进行了评述。生态承载力内涵可以概括为“特定时间、特定生态系统自我维持、自我调节的能力,资源与环境子系统对人类社会系统可持续发展的一种支持能力以及生态系统所能持续支撑的一定发展程度的社会经济规模和具有一定生活水平的人口数量”。今后生态承载力研究的发展方向是:研究对象趋向多元化,研究领域呈现交叉综合趋势;生态脆弱带将继续成为研究的热点地区;研究重点将继续向动态模拟化方向发展;新方法、新技术手段将不断应用于生态承载力研究。     

城市雨水塘生态风险评价方法

雨水塘已广泛用于城市雨洪管理实践中,并成为城市景观的重要组成部分。但作为受纳水体,雨水塘长期暴露于人类活动所造成的压力源中,易表现出生态脆弱性和易损性,雨水塘生态风险评价有助于提高生物多样性的保护与恢复。虽然沉积物质量评价"三元法"(sediment quality triad,SQT)等多学科综合评价方法已得到广泛应用,但其因参照站位选取问题并不适合于雨水塘生态系统,同时评价结果缺少一致性与特异性。研究提出更科学、有效的综合评价方法用于识别并确定雨水塘的生物状态,对于掌握城市雨水塘处理雨水径流的潜在生态风险具有重要的意义。为此,笔者回顾了城市雨水塘生态风险评价研究进展,从参照站位角度分析了现有基于底栖生物的生物评价法存在的局限性。介绍了2类生态质量功能目标的定义以及寡毛类动物指数法(oligochaete index methodology,OIM)结合其三基元(即OIM-SQT)的综合评价方法,并对该方法在生态质量目标概念框架中的应用前景与研究领域进行了展望,提出应用该方法解决参照站位选取问题并形成标准化的操作规程是未来的重点研究方向。     

生态用地分类初步研究

中国现有的土地利用分类体系对土地的生态属性考虑不足,导致生态用地分类缺乏统一的标准,生态用地难以得到有效保护。基于此,该文尝试对生态用地分类体系进行初步研究,以期为生态用地的科学管护,国土空间格局的优化和生态文明建设的推进提供科技支撑。在总结借鉴国内外学者有关生态用地研究成果的基础上,首先对生态用地概念进行了界定,在剔除《第二次全国土地调查技术规程-土地利用现状分类》中的非生态用地基础上,采用“逆向递推”方法将生态用地合并归类：根据生态用地的概念、内涵和划分依据,将剔除非生态用地后的土地利用现状分类中的二级地类归为35个生态用地三级地类;根据人类活动对生态用地影响范围和程度的不同而导致发挥的生态功能强弱的差异,将生态用地三级地类合并归类为14个二级地类;基于“人类活动-生态用地”影响反馈机理,将生态用地分为原生生态用地、半人工生态用地和人工生态用地3个一级地类。随后,为使生态用地分类系统在生态用地管理与生态建设实践中发挥应有的作用,将土地利用现状分类与生态用地分类实现了有效衔接。最后,作者建议借鉴国内外对于生态系统服务功能的相关研究,考虑从生态系统服务价值等视角来建立相关定量化的系统科学的生态用地分类体系。     

生态用地分类初步研究

中国现有的土地利用分类体系对土地的生态属性考虑不足,导致生态用地分类缺乏统一的标准,生态用地难以得到有效保护。基于此,该文尝试对生态用地分类体系进行初步研究,以期为生态用地的科学管护,国土空间格局的优化和生态文明建设的推进提供科技支撑。在总结借鉴国内外学者有关生态用地研究成果的基础上,首先对生态用地概念进行了界定,在剔除《第二次全国土地调查技术规程-土地利用现状分类》中的非生态用地基础上,采用"逆向递推"方法将生态用地合并归类:根据生态用地的概念、内涵和划分依据,将剔除非生态用地后的土地利用现状分类中的二级地类归为35个生态用地三级地类;根据人类活动对生态用地影响范围和程度的不同而导致发挥的生态功能强弱的差异,将生态用地三级地类合并归类为14个二级地类;基于"人类活动-生态用地"影响反馈机理,将生态用地分为原生生态用地、半人工生态用地和人工生态用地3个一级地类。随后,为使生态用地分类系统在生态用地管理与生态建设实践中发挥应有的作用,将土地利用现状分类与生态用地分类实现了有效衔接。最后,作者建议借鉴国内外对于生态系统服务功能的相关研究,考虑从生态系统服务价值等视角来建立相关定量化的系统科学的生态用地分类体系。     

近30年国内外生态约束下农村产业适宜性研究进展

通过文献计量学可视化分析方法客观评价生态约束下农村产业适宜性研究进展,了解国内外产业适宜性研究前沿,判断未来研究趋势。采用CiteSpace软件和文献计量学方法,以中国知网数据库核心期刊和Web of Science数据库为数据源,分析了1992—2020年国内外生态约束下农村产业适宜性研究的发展历程。该研究发现对资源承载力以及气候变化、土地利用、水资源管理等生态约束表征和经济驱动下的产业适宜性相关研究在国际上具有前沿性。2011—2020年国际研究热点内容聚焦在气候变化引发的产业适宜性和生态资源向资产管理转化方面,不再局限于与资源承载力关联的生态约束。而我国相关研究受国家政策和国际前沿研究导向影响明显,在1992—2010年以农村产业结构优化调整和生态安全体系构建为重点,基于短板理论,通过精确量化不同生态资源的弹性力,明确不破坏生态系统恢复能力的特定产业极限状态;近10 a来,随着生态对产业发展约束作用的凸显,生态约束概念的正式出现,生态保护与产业发展的关系得到更系统和全面的理解。最后,通过对比分析30年来国内外生态约束下农村产业适宜性相关研究的内容、方法和成果,提出我国今后的研究方向与重点是明晰化与度量化、协同化与资产化、政策化与底线化。     

基于生态足迹模型的贵州省仁怀市可持续发展及其影响因素研究

为探究仁怀市生态承载力变化特征,筛选影响可持续发展的关键因素,基于生态足迹模型分析了2010—2018年贵州仁怀市人均生态足迹、人均生态承载力及生态盈亏,同时选择生态足迹指数、生态压力指数、生态协调系数和万元GDP生态足迹4项指数和6项因子对仁怀市可持续发展状况与影响因素进行研究。结果表明,2010—2018年仁怀市处于生态赤字状态,人均生态足迹和人均生态承载力均呈先降后升趋势,人均生态足迹由1.5 hm~2·人~(-1)升至1.8 hm~2·人~(-1),增幅为20%,人均生态承载力由0.94 hm~2·人~(-1)升至1.08 hm~2·人~(-1),增幅为14.89%;仁怀市人均生态足迹和人均生态承载力分别以耕地和林地贡献为主,分别占人均生态足迹的81%和人均生态承载力的79%;仁怀市生态足迹指数为-76.96%～-59.22%,生态压力指数为1.59～1.77,生态足迹指数和生态压力指数分别处于第3和第5等级,区域可持续发展存在挑战;仁怀市生态足迹增长的驱动因素主要有人口数量、特色产业、污染排放等。该研究结果有助于了解仁怀市特色产业发展与生态足迹之间的内在联系,为同类型地区可持续发展提供借鉴。     

中国中部六省生态足迹实证分析

生态足迹是一种定量评价区域资源可持续利用的生态经济指标,其方法紧扣可持续发展的理论,是一个涉及系统性、公平性和延续性的综合指标,具有可度量性、计算合理性和结果可比性等优点。在介绍其概念、计算模型的基础上,针对中国中部六省的资源和能源消费状况进行了实证分析。研究表明:本区2004年人均生态足迹1.793hm2,生态承载力为0.488hm2·人-1,生态足迹需求与供给的比例为3.677∶1,人均生态赤字为1.305hm2,说明中部地区的发展已经超出了生态承载力的阈值;该区生态足迹多样性指数1.336,万元GDP足迹1.982hm2,生态协调系数1.227等,也反映了中部地区处于一种不可持续的发展状态。     

重大工程对区域生态安全的驱动效应及指标体系构建

生态安全评价是目前生态学和可持续发展研究的热点,不同尺度、不同生态系统类型的生态安全评价是目前研究的方向。对于强烈改变区域生态安全的重大工程建设来说,生态安全评价具有重要现实意义。本文从生态安全内涵的转变入手,通过对生态安全指标体系研究的进展入手,结合工程本身的特征,从驱动力-状态-响应指标入手,得出DSR范式在工程生态安全评价中应用的可行性,制定了区域生态安全评价指标体系概念框架。同时以公路工程和水利工程为例,探讨了水利和道路工程生态安全评价指标体系的选取。针对不同的评价方法的差异,分析了各种方法在应用上优缺点。     

Theorising pathways to sustainability

Using a Pathways approach, controversies over environmental and natural resource management are viewed as expressions of alternative, or competing, pathways to sustainability. This supports deeper understanding of the underlying causes of natural resource management controversies. The framework is composed of two elements: the STEPS (Social, Technological, and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability) Pathways approach and frame analysis. Many sustainable development dilemmas are played out in specific places and consequently, the Pathways approach is integrated with a place-based frame analysis. The resulting framework guides empirical investigation in place-based contexts. This theorising about sustainability science can be used to cast light on contested natural resource management issues, in this case mining in northern Sweden. By exposing the range of alternative Pathways to critical norms of sustainable development, we ascertain whether action alternatives are compatible with sustainable futures. The framework provides a way in which sustainability science can better understand the origins of natural resource management conflicts, characterise the positions of the actors involved, identify the potential for cooperation between stakeholders leading to policy resolution and judge what Pathways help or hinder the pursuit of sustainable development. In addition, it can enhance sustainability science by guiding integrative sustainability research at the project scale.     

Community sustainability: a holistic approach to measuring the sustainability of rural communities in Scotland

ABSTRACT

Although sustainable development was defined in the Brundtland Report almost 30 years ago, the current usage of the concepts of sustainability and sustainable development remain highly equivocal. In the context of rural communities, multiple interpretations and weak definitions lead to confusion in understanding what comprises a sustainable rural community. Building on existing definitions (e.g. Baker’s, 2006, ‘Ladder of Sustainable Development’), models (principally, The Egan Review’s, 2004, ‘Components of Sustainable Communities’) and findings of this study, a sustainable community is defined and a holistic model of a sustainable place-based rural community is presented. This model, the sustainable community design (SCD) is used as the basis for analysing community sustainability, which is measured using mixed methods and scorecard assessment. Sensitivity of the method is demonstrated with inter- and intra-community variations in sustainability across three diverse Scottish rural communities. Intra-community variations illustrate heterogeneity in community sustainability, explain ambiguity in characterisations of an individual community’s sustainability, and highlight the importance of an interdisciplinary and holistic approach to community development. The SCD framework is presented as a useful tool for meso-level sustainability assessment and to facilitate the sustainable development of rural communities.     

重金属污染土壤属性区间识别模型的赋权分析

土壤重金属污染评价为土壤重金属污染的及时防范和综合治理提供重要的理论依据。文章在属性区间识别理论的基础上,构建土壤重金属污染评价的属性区间识别模型：选取土壤重金属污染中普遍存在的Hg、Cd、As、Pb、Cu、Zn作为评价指标,采用均化系数将各评价指标的属性测度区间转化为综合属性测度;为避免主观因素,利用主成分分析法、熵权法、CRITIC法对各评价指标进行3次客观赋权;最后根据置信度准则和分级标准进行土壤重金属污染的综合评价。对3种赋权法得到的权重和评价结果进行比较,表明：属性识别模型在土壤重金属污染评价中适用且有利于评价结果准确性的提高;3种客观赋权法算得的权重合理,且其优异程度为主成分分析法〈熵权法〈CRITIC法。     

Book reviews and notices

The aim of sustainable development is to balance social, economic, and environmental needs. In order to justify the decisions they make, stakeholders must quantify the different impacts found in the operations and developments of companies and/or projects throughout their life cycle. However, as some areas are subjective in nature, the quantification process of the different impacts and the assessment of sustainable development performance become arduous tasks of development, validation, and application of scientific and empirical methods with the intrinsic objective of finding an agreement among the involved parties (i.e., stakeholders). Several environmental and sustainability assessment tools, instruments, processes, and methodologies have been developed; rating systems stand out and have gained attention and credibility, as demonstrated by the vast number of certified projects around the world and the widely-known usefulness and advantages of their application. The Wa-Pa-Su project sustainability rating system presents an integrated approach to sustainability assessment by integrating three distinctive areas of knowledge: (1) sustainable development theory and fundamentals supports the ultimate goal of the rating system, which is to contribute to sustainability, with the aim of finding a path to balance social, economic, and environmental needs; (2) continual performance improvement becomes essential due to the duration of the projects, as it is critical to allow organizations or projects to improve performance over time; and (3) multi-criteria decision analysis assists with the assessment process through stakeholder engagement and participation, and the design and implementation of a criteria weighting system.     

Evaluating and structuring indicators for wetland assessment

Wetland assessment has been a popular field of research worldwide. However, various indicators have been used in wetland assessment for different purposes and backgrounds and also because of the research limitations. Therefore, a more comprehensive, sound, and efficient indicator system is needed for researchers’ referencing to evaluate wetlands. After an extensive review of wetland assessment literatures, the reported indicators were evaluated using the developed assessment system, based on the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) with three main goals: nature protection, function utilization, and sustainable development. Each indicator was evaluated using two methods. The first method was to study the percentage of the indicator application, and the second was to assess the weighted ratios assigned to the indicators according to principles of comparability, typicality, sensibility, and availability. The results of these two methods were compared to study the commonalities and specialties of the indicators. They also showed that some indicators were widely used, including biodiversity, weather and climate, hydrological change, and the output of wetland. On the other hand, other sustainable indicators were easily ignored, such as environmental carrying capacity and wetland planning. Furthermore, an indicator system for wetland assessment was structured and strategized to discuss how to choose indicators for wetland assessment under different conditions. The proposed approach can be used to guide the process of wetland assessments in the future.     

至2050年中国生态高值农业体系建设特征与目标

2010年6月7日,国家主席胡锦涛在两院（中国科学院、中国工程院）院士大会上针对农业科技明确指出：构建我国生态高值农业和生物产业体系,建成农业高值转化的产业体系。本文对＂生态高值农业＂进行论述。所谓生态,就是要体现农业既能为社会提供安全优质的农产品又能实现农业资源的永续利用,将农业纳入可持续发展的道路;所谓高值,就是要体现农业有很高的土地产出率、投入产出率、劳动生产率。因此,＂生态高值农业＂是集约化经营与生态化生产有机结合的现代农业。它以健康消费需求为导向,以提高农业市场竞争力和可持续发展能力为核心,兼有高投入、高产出、高效益与可持续发展的双重特性,是转变农业增长方式、提高农业综合生产能力的集中体现。     

EMERGY analysis for sustainability evaluation of the Baiyangdian wetland ecosystem in China

This study presents a quantitative and ecological benefit evaluation of the Baiyangdian wetland in China between the years 2000 and 2006. Methods of EMERGY analysis were applied to illustrate the wetland ecosystem, to evaluate the economic and environmental inputs and consequent yields, and to assess the sustainability of the Baiyangdian wetland. The indicators for the integrated ecological and economic system, such as EMERGY yield ratio (EYR) (7.51), EMERGY investment ratio (EIR) (4.52), environmental loading ratio (ELR) (2.92), EMERGY exchange ratio (0.41), and EMERGY sustainable indicator (ESI) (2.57) were calculated, compared, analyzed, and discussed. The non-renewable investment in Baiyangdian was greater than renewable investment, leading to the unsustainable development of the system. High EYR indicated that the Baiyangdian integrated system had created huge profits for its people, while ELR and ESI revealed that human behavior has been a heavy burden on the environment, and countermeasures should be taken by the Chinese government to relieve and resolve these problems. Potential management methods were also proposed in this paper.     

Defining and achieving sustainable development

SUMMARY

This paper analyses the fundamental problems of defining and achieving sustainable development. A common core of the various definitions of sustainability circulating is identified. Economic and scientific approaches to operationalize sustainability generally lead to management rules, which — if obeyed — should guarantee sustainability. Since it is not possible to precisely predict the future, this scientific—technical—economic route to sustainability may fail. A second, ethical way, to sustainability which interprets sustainability as an ideal for fair play is introduced. How the two different ways may complement one another with a three-step hierarchy of political goals is elucidated.     

Ökologische Kriterien der Technik- und Stoffbewertung: Integration des Vorsorgeprinzips

The development of criteria for the comparative assessment of technologies and substances beyond the toxicological approach and the development of an integrated pattern of criteria is still at the beginning. The criteria presented here for integrating the precautionary principle into the substance and technology assessment have to be further operationalised and completed, in the same way as the criteria which have been discussed and developed within the framework of

- the poisoning and pollutant paradigm

- the equilibrium paradigm

- the sustainability and “Mitwelt” paradigm

- the energy and the general technology assessment debate.

The resolution of the criteria has to be improved and their range (which is certainly limited) has to be explored more precisely. The application of the criteria should never occur mechanically. Technology assessment and substance assessment are not only scientific, but essentially social and, hence, discursive processes. It is not so much the assessment of individual substances which should be in the center of the debate, but rather the comparative assessment of competing techniques, substances and substancerelated development pathways (see vonGleich andRubik, 1966 as a first approach to assess the environmental effects of old and new materials). According to the example of the energy strategies, only the development of competing strategies in the substance field could create the necessary prerequisites for a broad public discourse and thus for a democratisation of the basic substancerelated policy decisions. This discourse is a duty which science and economy have toward society.